Proposal: Add AI contribution policy

[vdemeester]

• Establish clear guidelines for responsible AI tool usage
• Ensure transparency through disclosure requirements
• Maintain quality and security standards for AI-assisted work

This is modeled from Fedora's AI contribution policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/council/policy/ai-contribution-policy/

/cc @tektoncd/governing-board

[tekton-robot]

@vdemeester: GitHub didn't allow me to request PR reviews from the following users: tektoncd/governing-board.

Note that only tektoncd members and repo collaborators can review this PR, and authors cannot review their own PRs.

Details

In response to this:

• Establish clear guidelines for responsible AI tool usage
• Ensure transparency through disclosure requirements
• Maintain quality and security standards for AI-assisted work

/cc @tektoncd/governing-board

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[afrittoli]

It looks good, thanks!

[afrittoli]

/approve

[waveywaves]

+1
/lgtm

[tekton-robot]

@waveywaves: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

Details

In response to this:

+1
/lgtm

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[waveywaves]

/approve

[twoGiants]

I like it 😸 👍 but I think it's not strict enough and to long. I think the ghostty AI Policy is pretty good.

It states the most important thing at the beginning and in the second paragraph states that maintainer can close PRs if he suspects undisclosed AI use => If AI isn't disclosed but a maintainer suspects its use, the PR will be closed [1].

Of course I would remain professional and leave out such things => Bad AI drivers will be banned and ridiculed in public. You've been warned. => 🤣 But I understand the sentiment. I have reviewed to much AI slop in last 6 months.

I propose to use the Ghostty AI policy and adapt it a bit:

• we're not going to ridicule bad AI drivers,
• we could reference our design principles, standards, and code of conduct
• leave the "How to Disclose" section
• leave the "Security Considerations"

Of course it's up for discussion and the policy here is already great! If we decide to keep it I would at least change it a bit and say that ALL AI usage must be disclosed and that maintainers can close PRs / Issues if they suspect undisclosed AI usage and that maintainers are exempt from those rules.

But let me know what you think.

[vdemeester]

Updated in a new commit @twoGiants

[twoGiants]

Thank you for the change! I like this version. It's concise and very clear. 😸 👍

/approve
/lgtm
/hold for other reviewers

[tekton-robot]

@twoGiants: changing LGTM is restricted to collaborators

Details

In response to this:

Thank you for the change! I like this version. It's concise and very clear. 😸 👍

/approve
/lgtm
/hold for other reviewers

Instructions for interacting with me using PR comments are available here. If you have questions or suggestions related to my behavior, please file an issue against the kubernetes/test-infra repository.

[tekton-robot]

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: afrittoli, dibyom, twoGiants, waveywaves

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Details

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

• OWNERS [afrittoli,dibyom]

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment